Austin TX: Alamo Drafthouse Lake Creek (update, signs gone)

[propellerhead]

The second and third paragraphs may mean nothing to this person. The last few is what matters. I'd put more weight on those topics.

Canceled Handgun License (CHL)

Picked the wrong word in the spell checker?

i.e. posted so that CHL holders could not carry

I'd clarify "carry". A non-CHL might ask "Carry what?"

[Snake Doctor]

Ms. Rodgers:

It has come to my attention that recently the Alamo Drafthouse at Lake Creek posted a sign that would essentially make it illegal for Canceled Handgun License (CHL) holders to bring a concealed firearm on to the premises. I am writing you today in an effort to open some dialog between myself and management at the Alamo Drafthouse.

I would like to preface my letter by acknowledging and relaying the fact that I understand Alamo Drafthouse has the legal right to post the referenced sign. That being said, I would like to take this opportunity to communicate to you why I chose to get my CHL and why I choose to carry my handgun everyday. Prior to getting my CHL, I spent many hours discussing, with my wife and others, the personal responsibilities and the pros and cons that are inherit to carrying a firearm. It was not a decision I made lightly or hastily. It was not a decision I made based on ego or machismo. I wish we lived in a world where no one feared for their safety, however, the reality is that law enforcement officers can not be everywhere, all the time, to protect us. The reality is that in a life and death situation, when seconds count, law enforcement is usually minutes away. During my decision making process, I came to understand that a handgun is not the answer, but merely a last resort tool, a tool that could very well save my life or lives of my family. I ultimately chose to get my CHL because want to legally have whatever tools are necessary to protect my family and have them readily available to me. Every time I carry my weapon I think to myself, I hope I never have a need to use it and at the same time I am thankful that if I ever do need it, I will have it.
Does she really need to know all that?


Once I made the decision, I took the required class to obtain my CHL. This class not only tested weapon proficiency and knowledge about gun laws, but it spent a good deal of time discussing when and when not to use deadly force, as well as a good deal of time discussing conflict resolution. Once I was done with my class and passed all the written and proficiency tests I still was not allowed to carry. At that point, I had to be photographed, fingerprinted, and complete all the background checks. The background check took almost 90 days for the Department of Public Safety to complete. DPS checks local and state criminal records at each location I lived in for the past 10 years, not to mention the federal background check. The checks include juvenile history as well as medical history (in case one is unstable or has an addiction). DPS will not issue a CHL to anyone who has ever been convicted of a felony (ever) or to an alcoholic or drug addict, nor will they issue a CHL to anyone who has a misdemeanor conviction in the past five years. Also, those who are delinquent in child support payments or school loans are not eligible for a CHL. The state takes great care about who is allowed to have a CHL. DPS, as the issuing authority for a CHL, is required to publish reports about CHL holders who commit crimes. As it turns out, only .03708% of all crimes were committed by CHL holders as of 2005 (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... rt2005.pdf).

I understand that employees at the Alamo Drafthouse are unarmed and management wishes to protect them as much as they can. The reality is that by posting the signs the only ones who will be armed are the criminals. Criminals, by definition, do not obey the law, therefore, they will ignore the signs and carry firearms on the premises anyway. If a criminal wants to do harm, do you think a no guns sign will stop him from acting out his plan? Do you think it is possible that when a criminal sees that a place is a gun-free zone that he might see that as an opportunity to find unarmed victims?

Recently in the news (Colorado), an assailant armed himself with several firearms and 1000 rounds of ammunition, walked into a church that has 7000 members and intended to shoot as many as he could. After shooting two people, a citizen who is licensed and armed shot the assailant, stopping him from causing anymore harm. Had that church been a gun-free zone, i.e. posted so that CHL holders could not carry, how many people do you think could have been killed? Do you think that a sign would have made the assailant think twice about carrying out his plan?

Although I can not speak for everyone who has a CHL, I believe most have gone though a similar thought process that I have and have come to similar conclusion. I really enjoy the Alamo Drafthouse and I would really hate to do business else where. (Great point; important to remind her that you're not picking on Alamo, but rather wishing they would change their policy so that you could further patronize their business.) That being said, I do not plan to return to the Alamo Drafthouse until such time that the 30.06 signage is removed. Just FYI, http://www.texas3006.com is a web site where CHL holder can post information about businesses that have 30.06 signage on their premises. The Alamo Drafthouse is listed there.

Sincerely,

ME.

[Snake Doctor]

I'd also like to know that this woman thinks about this story from exactly 11 months ago today. I know for a FACT, yes FACT, that the AD's on South Lamar and Anderson (aka: Village) both had (and continue to have) the 7-Eleven sign, as I call it; the one that says "The unlicensed possession of a handgun, etc. etc." that you see most often at restaurants and corner stores. Good thing those signs were there to stop the armed robber! Oh... wait... they didn't stop the robber. Weird...

http://www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp?S=4374271

A suspect behind bars is believed to be connected to the robberies of several Austin restaurants.

Investigators say this all started back in August in downtown Austin with a robbery at The Library on Sixth Street.

Less than a month later two other restaurants, Trudy's in south Austin and Reed's in north Austin, were hit.

Police believe the same suspect struck again in south Austin at the Paggi House in October, and the Alamo Drafthouse on South Lamar in November.

"I guess more surprised than fear at first. Fear when you think about what could be the end result," Paggi House General Manager Bobby Sharp said.

"He was behind the door with a gun. He told me to go over there with my boss, and he robbed me as well. I had about $1,000 I was turning in," robbery victim Kristi Robinson said.

Police say Rhodes stole thousands of dollars from the safe at the Paggi House, thousands of dollars from the Alamo Drafthouse. Altogether a $100,000 from restaurants in Texas. And, that doesn't even count the restaurants in other states.

Police are linking 43-year-old Lloyd Rhodes to 20 restaurant robberies across the country.

It's a case that has been eluding detectives for months -- a man entering restaurants pulling out a gun and running off with thousands of dollars in cash.

The break came when he went to the Alamo Drafthouse on Anderson Lane and was caught on surveillance camera.

News 36 asked for that video from the restaurant owner and then put it on television.

"It was your video that made it to the NBC affiliate in Louisville, Kentucky and Detective Zender immediately recognized it as being Lloyd Rhodes. From there is just snowballed," APD Det. Brian Miller said.

The detective in Louisville recognized Rhodes because he had bonded out of jail there in June for robbery.

"I was laying in bed, watching the news and they ran a story from Texas on a serial robber. Being a robbery detective, I was watching it closely and when I looked at it, I recognized immediately who the suspect was," Detective Jerry Zender with the Louisville Police said.

Once police identified him as the same man, the FBI and the U.S. Marshalls office got involved. They picked him up in Los Angeles.

Rhodes is in the LA jail. He'll first be transferred to Kentucky to answer charges there and then sent to Austin.

Police are trying to group at least all his alleged Texas robberies together, which would lead to more jail time.

[DVDTracker]

Many thanks GeoJAP, that's excellent news!

[NcongruNt]

Does anyone know if the one on South Lamar is also posted? The last time I was there was to see Rocky 6. At that time i do not recall seeing it posted and I was carrying. That being said, I did not go up to the ticket booth (was off to the side smoking when the wife bought the tickets ...yeah i know...bad habit) so I guess it could have been posted there...but it was not posted on the entrance door and I did not see one anywhere else.

It is not posted.

[smyrna]

Having seen the sign at the box office, which by the way is no where near the correct size and definitly not conspicuously posted for all to see, is it really worth trying to convince the management otherwise?

I mean, other posts lead me to believe that most of us would ignore the non-compliant signs and continue on business as usual. By bringing it to the management's attention, she communicated her intent of the sign and has effectively given you notice not to carry in her establishment. Is this what you wanted?

If I sound critical, I'm not trying to be, but I personally refuse to educate those businesses about the CHL laws regarding posting the appropriate sign when my safety is concerned and I know they don't respect it to begin with.

[KBCraig]

Having seen the sign at the box office, which by the way is no where near the correct size and definitly not conspicuously posted for all to see, is it really worth trying to convince the management otherwise?

I mean, other posts lead me to believe that most of us would ignore the non-compliant signs and continue on business as usual. By bringing it to the management's attention, she communicated her intent of the sign and has effectively given you notice not to carry in her establishment. Is this what you wanted?

I generally advise against educating business owners who post the wrong signs (which can be ignored), lest they replace them with the proper signs (which can't). They're usually just ignorant and mistaken, not ideologues.

In this case, though, the manager has made it clear that she wishes to exclude CHLs, even though she knows all about CHLs. I'd educate her and tell her to put up the proper signs, because if she wants to keep out all CHLs, I want to help make sure she keeps out all of them. And their families. And their friends.

[pt145ss]

I would like to preface my letter by acknowledging and relaying the fact that I understand Alamo Drafthouse has the legal right to post the referenced sign. That being said, I would like to take this opportunity to communicate to you why I chose to get my CHL and why I choose to carry my handgun everyday. Prior to getting my CHL, I spent many hours discussing, with my wife and others, the personal responsibilities and the pros and cons that are inherit to carrying a firearm. It was not a decision I made lightly or hastily. It was not a decision I made based on ego or machismo. I wish we lived in a world where no one feared for their safety, however, the reality is that law enforcement officers can not be everywhere, all the time, to protect us. The reality is that in a life and death situation, when seconds count, law enforcement is usually minutes away. During my decision making process, I came to understand that a handgun is not the answer, but merely a last resort tool, a tool that could very well save my life or lives of my family. I ultimately chose to get my CHL because want to legally have whatever tools are necessary to protect my family and have them readily available to me. Every time I carry my weapon I think to myself, I hope I never have a need to use it and at the same time I am thankful that if I ever do need it, I will have it.[/color]
Does she really need to know all that?

In most circumstances I would agree that no one needs to know that. At the risk of sounding misogynistic, women tend to respond to emotions/feelings and men tend to respond better to facts. I thought I would try to open the dialog with feelings. I also did not want her to think that we carry as some sort of chest pounding ego thing.

[pt145ss]

The second and third paragraphs may mean nothing to this person. The last few is what matters. I'd put more weight on those topics.

Canceled Handgun License (CHL)

Picked the wrong word in the spell checker?

i.e. posted so that CHL holders could not carry

I'd clarify "carry". A non-CHL might ask "Carry what?"

Thanks for catching that. I put this together in about ten minutes and did not have a chance to read it a second time before posting and leaving work.

I will make the changes and send it off.

[txinvestigator]

Having seen the sign at the box office, which by the way is no where near the correct size and definitly not conspicuously posted for all to see, is it really worth trying to convince the management otherwise?

I mean, other posts lead me to believe that most of us would ignore the non-compliant signs and continue on business as usual. By bringing it to the management's attention, she communicated her intent of the sign and has effectively given you notice not to carry in her establishment. Is this what you wanted?

I generally advise against educating business owners who post the wrong signs (which can be ignored), lest they replace them with the proper signs (which can't). They're usually just ignorant and mistaken, not ideologues.

In this case, though, the manager has made it clear that she wishes to exclude CHLs, even though she knows all about CHLs. I'd educate her and tell her to put up the proper signs, because if she wants to keep out all CHLs, I want to help make sure she keeps out all of them. And their families. And their friends.

[KBCraig]

Keep it up, and I will let you buy me lunch.

[jimlongley]

I have a different take on the reply.

It looks like a lot of bafflegab to me, stating that the reason they post is answered in the Q&A and that they have over 100 unarmed employees (all there at the same time?) really qualifies as a non-answer. She stated that they post for the safety of their employees and customers without actually saying it, avoiding any possible logical answer pointing out that unarmed equals victim, and didn't refer to a specific Q or A so as to leave that open to the broadest interpretation too.

[DVDTracker]

I asked her "If you have time, I would love to know your reasoning behind not letting licensees carry at Lake Creek." and have not received any reply.

[Rex B]

I ran across this sample letter on another site.
It may have been written by the late Jim Nicholson, and it's designed to be personalized and sent to posted businesses:

[CEO, Public Relations Director, President, etc.]
Any Company, Inc.
Any Street
Any Town USA
Dear Mr. __________________
I have learned that your store is considering barring concealed handgun licensees (CHL) from carrying handguns on or about their persons while on your business premises. I would ask you to take the following factors into consideration before finalizing your decision. Carrying a concealed handgun onto private property is legal and authorized by the Texas Legislature so that CHLs may protect themselves from danger. If you prohibit CHLs from carrying a handgun while on your business premises, you will be rendering useless a lawful act on the part of such persons. Additionally, you will render them unable to protect themselves when the legislature has provided a means for their own self protection.
Common sense indicates that you are assuming the risk of providing for the personal protection of such persons while on your property. An example of reasonable steps that you might take to provide for the personal protection of CHLs who are disarmed while on your premises is to hire round the clock security guards to provide armed protection in your place of business and in the parking area.
It is reasonably foreseeable that posting signs indicating that CHLs may not carry a handgun on or about their person while on your premises, would indicate to the criminal element that the persons inside the store are disarmed and thereby make your business premises a target for violent criminal activity. Certainly, it would make it more of a target than the business who posts no sign at all, leaving the criminal element uncertain as to whether or not CHLs are armed on the premises. This was the intent of the legislature as the handgun is required to be concealed. The purpose of the statute is to create a tremendous deterrent effect throughout society in that the criminal element will not know who has chosen to exercise their lawful right of self-defense, and who has not. By creating a zone where you advertise that patrons on your premises are not armed, you are holding yourself out to the public as a place where the public safety desires as expressed by the legislature are void and prohibited, and you give the criminal element a reason to believe that your premises are vulnerable to crime.
Recently, Taco Bell was assessed eight million dollars in damages for a violent assault that took place on its property for failing to protect the persons at the Taco Bell. The law is fairly clear on this subject in Texas. “Generally, an ordinary business owner or operator, as opposed to a proprietor of a restaurant, inn, or similar establishment, is under a duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of his or her invitees. Garner v. McGinty, 771 S.W.2d 242, 246(Tex. Civ. App.–Austin 1989, no writ). “A business invitor owes a duty to his business invitees to take reasonable steps to protect them from intentional injuries caused by third parties if he knows or has reason to know, from what he has observed or from past experience, that criminal acts are likely to occur, either generally or at some particular time.� Id. at 246: Castillo v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,663 S.W.2d 60,66 (Tex.Civ.App.–San Antonio 1983, writ ref’d n.r.e.)(�there is no duty upon the owner of operators of a shopping center…or upon merchants and shopkeepers generally, whose mode of operation of their premises does not attract or provide a climate for crime, to guard against criminal acts of a third party, unless they know…that acts are occurring or are about to occur on the premises that pose imminent probability of harm to an invitee: whereupon a duty of reasonable care to protect against such act arises.�) Thus, a plaintiff in a case against an ordinary business owner or operator will have to demonstrate that the business owner or operator knew or had reason to know that criminal acts were likely to occur in order to establish that the business owner or operator had a duty to take reasonable steps to protect invitees from injuries caused by third parties. By contrast, the duty of a proprietor of a restaurant, inn, or similar establishment generally includes the duty to exercise reasonable care to protect patrons from assaults of third persons while on the premises. Eastep v. Jack-in-the-Box, Inc., 546 S.W.2d 116(Tex.Civ.App.–Houston{14th Dist.} 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.)
Then attorney General’s office of Texas has noted the following on this issue: “Once a duty to protect patrons from the intentional acts of third parties is established, whether a business owner or operator will be held liable for injuries to customers inflicted by third person appears to depend in great part upon the foreseeability of the assault and whether the business owner or operator took reasonable measures to prevent the assault.�
I personally will not shop at your business premises if it prohibits CHLs from carrying their handguns concealed on their persons while on your premises for three reasons:
(1) You discriminate against individuals who merely take advantage of a lawful means of protecting themselves; (2) You have created a place where there is a higher likelihood of criminal activity; and (3) The absence of state certified and qualified citizens who lawfully carry a handgun means that I will be less safe than if I were in a similarly situated place of business that did not prohibit CHLs from being personally armed on the premises;
If you persist in this policy, I will advise the members of my family and all of my friends not to patronize your place of business and we will take our business to a competitor. Even a small price increase for the same goods is worth the personal safety of myself and my family in these troubled times.
Many businesses have considered putting up signs prohibiting otherwise lawfully carried handguns to be prohibited from the premises and have changed their policy to allowing CHLs to be armed on the premises. These premises include: Walmart and J.C. Penneys.
Moreover, I understand that the attorneys for the Texas Restaurant Association have concluded after a thoughtful and extensive review of all the factors involved that allowing CHLs on the premises armed does not increase liability in any way for a restaurant as it is a legislatively authorized and protected activity. This is so because the individuals involved have had a background check, careful screening, state qualification and certification of knowledge of the penal code, safety procedures and, have passed a handgun proficiency examination, both in writing and in physical demonstration. Several other association general counsel have concluded that allowing such an individuals onto the premises of their businesses does not raise the threshold for liability.
I hope that you will consider the above factors carefully, and in the end, come to the right decision and allow CHLs to patronize your business while exercising their legislatively authorized right to their own self-protection. Alternatively if you choose to deny me the legislatively granted right to persons to protect themselves while on your premises, you have legally assumed the risk of providing for the safety of your patrons and have made a decision to ban lawful carrying of handguns on your business premises after understanding all of the factors involved.

Yours truly,
Texas Gun Owner

[Mike1951]

Impressive letter!!

Does anyone know the details of the Taco Bell case mentioned?

I frequently see it stated that the business would be responsible but have never seen an actual case that could be quoted.

Does the case actually involve our cause or did someone slip on a wet floor?